ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparative analysis of illumina and oxford nanopore sequencing platforms for 16S rRNA profiling of respiratory microbial communities.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Oxford Nanopore Sequencing, a Promising Technology for Precision Diagnostics in Intensive Care Units: A Narrative Review.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Performance and practicality of 16S nanopore sequencing for routine bacterial identification in clinical samples.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Harnessing next-generation microbial diagnostics to optimize infection management in immunocompromised hosts.Current opinion in infectious diseases · 2026Review
- Choosing Between Short-Read 16S, Full-Length ONT 16S, and Long-Read Shotgun Metagenomics for Soil Microbiome Studies: A Critical Review of the Benchmarking Evidence.Microorganisms · 2026Review
- Integrated omics analyses reveal insights into microbial dark matter associated with deep-sea water in Central Indian Ocean.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2026Article
- Designing RNA sequencing experiments: A practical guide to reproducible gene expression analysis.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2026Review
- A comprehensive review on bacterial endophytic secondary metabolites: a road map from crude extract to lead molecule production.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- PacBio full-length 16S rRNA gene sequencing processed with Emu and GTDB provides the highest taxonomic resolution for rumen bacteriome profiling.ISME communications · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of full-length 16s ribosomal RNA gene sequencing in human oropharyngeal swabs using primer sets with different degrees of degeneracy.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The respiratory microbiome plays a crucial role in health and disease, necessitating accurate characterization through high-throughput sequencing technologies. This study provides a comparative analysis of Illumina NextSeq and Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) sequencing platforms for 16 S rRNA profiling of respiratory microbial communities. Illumina sequencing, known for its high accuracy and short-read lengths (~ 300 bp), is widely used for genus-level microbial classification but struggles with species-level resolution due to its limited read length. In contrast, ONT generates full-length 16 S rRNA reads (~ 1,500 bp), enabling higher taxonomic resolution but historically exhibiting higher error rates (5-15%). Analysis of alpha and beta diversity indicated that Illumina captured greater species richness, while community evenness remained comparable between platforms. Beta diversity differences were significant in pig samples but not in human samples, suggesting that sequencing platform effects are more pronounced in complex microbiomes. Taxonomic profiling revealed that Illumina detected a broader range of taxa, while ONT exhibited improved resolution for dominant bacterial species. ANCOM-BC2 differential abundance analysis highlighted platform-specific biases, with ONT overrepresenting certain taxa (e.g., Enterococcus, Klebsiella) while underrepresenting others (e.g., Prevotella, Bacteroides). These findings emphasize that platform selection should align with study Objective: Illumina is ideal for broad microbial surveys, whereas ONT excels in species-level resolution and real-time applications. Future research should explore hybrid sequencing approaches to leverage the strengths of both technologies, thereby improving microbiome characterization in both clinical and preclinical settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.